Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

oscar · 2004-07-21 17:01:37

Bob, are you still there? I hope cat didn't bite your tongue. Anyways, I hate when you just mention Hoagland, wouldn't it be nice to see a multispectral images comparisonof the same face (or "hill" as you say) using Odyssey's VIS camera?

http://www.enterprisemission.com/paper_ … age=paper1

I know, I know you're skeptic person and you're geologist. So, I tell you what, I'm gonna give the e-mail of Dr. Gerhard Neukum, Frei Universität Berlin, Earth Sciences Dpt, Germany. Here it is:

gneukum@zedatfu-berlin.de

Or you can call the phone shown in the link

(just in case you wanna clarify your hundreds of doubts, of course). Don't forget to glue the chat and then set it here, okey dokey?

Rxke · 2004-07-21 23:17:49

Hoagland doesn't prove anything with his multi-spectral interpretation. And yes, I read it, and no, it's far from convincing.

And why bother Neukum? He isn't likely to support Hoagland's views, au contraire, after undoubtedly having been inundated by requests about the Face, chances are e-mails regarding that subject will be treated as spam.

oscar · 2004-07-22 05:19:04

Rxke: I don't mind you posted 1591 times this far with comments like that, it doesn't matter if I already wrote other group of people arriving at the same conclusions examining the subject according to their point of view if their distintitive speciality. Why bothering about YOUR opinion at all? If you had a scientific mind you would have to try to be in touch with those fellows and tell them the scientific approach of you that "invalid" their statement, not your Italian bravata which is just a personal statement. I have personally received many times answers of authors who got fame and fortune whether by e-mail or personal letter. You're showing a disposition already evident in your "scientific" approach sort of message.
Nor in this forum neither in any other the purpose was, ir or will ever be trying to convince anyone. That's just a form of expression. Nothing convinces anybody about anything. The only thing we can do is just trying to share what we know.

Some to add about the theme rather than your personal skepticism? Specific data, perhaps?
Nop?
It figures....

oscar · 2004-07-22 05:30:03

C'mon, Belgian guy, I guess being 34 years old and almost achieving your master degree in fine arts and conservation of photos, etc, etc, you do have many interesting things to discuss with those experts..., perhaps you can discuss about satelite photographs like the ones in Nazca, Peru. You probably are aware these lines can only be seen by airplane but there are other artificial lines that can only be seen by satelite and were seen first by Landsat in 1975 (when you were 5 years old). I suppose you're gonna say those lines are "natural" too, right?

Rxke · 2004-07-22 05:45:31

AFAIK i was not commenting on the Nazca drawings, but on Hoagland's page you referred to.

I might not have specific data, but pointing out erroneous interpretation of data might suit you i hope?
The main problem with that page is the digital enhancement of certain features, wich- i concede- are at least somewhat documented, but do not make much sense.
If you compare the original pictures with the ones he shows later on, you can clearly see *only the face* has been enhanced, but then he goes on about how strange it is because it looks different, compared with the rest.Of course it does!

And then that 'proof' about the twilight stuff... Comparing a sat.pic with pics on the ground, where the sun is in a totally different location in relation with the cameras, proves absolutely nothing.

BTW: ever heard of the netiquette: attack the post, not the poster?

Palomar · 2004-07-22 05:51:46

*Hi Oscar.

Some people will agree with you and believe as you do...others don't. You seem to be trying to convince people here to believe as you do. Some people don't.

That's life.

No one here "has to" agree with you or me or anyone else.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-07-22 05:55:23

And while I'm at it: I'm not doing a masters in fine arts, my studies are scientific, not arts. It's a common confusion, our department is just 'under' the fine arts department, legally, while in other countries it normally is under univ. department. Historical background I'll not bother you with.
Coincidentally I'm working on a thesis about digital image-manipulation, so I *could* discuss satellite imagery, I've done quite a lot of reading/studying about that subject...

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:19:30

Good, that's why is important you discuss these items at the level you understand it. I agree with the person who says people don't have to agree with anybody. I'm just using the forum to arrive the same conclusion of Mr. R. who responded to someone else "your opinion is as good as mine". Yet I always try to back up my comments with a lot of information trying to make the people think, even when I now many readers "jump" information and only 1% is gonna read the whole links or digest the information.
The position of the light is important in artificial monuments because they knew and gave attention to specific days like eclipses, solstices, equinoxes for reasons I have not described in detail here, but if you wanna check up the links again (specially in Marcahuasi plateau, 14.000 feet upon sea level) where the "eroded" face changes from childhood profile to 80 years old woman while the Sun "moves" until sunset you will understand the importance of this. Unfortunately this is not your area of work and seems your knowledge about cryptography is not something you are interested. You should in first place because if you don't know the difference between a natural design and artificial design on Earth you are gonna be blind looking at Martian photographs!!!! Lemme help you:
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/bara … ...ca.html
http://marsartifacts.tripod.com/art.htm … m/art.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html]h … nazca.html

Did you see the spider in Nazca line there? Now please check this on Mars surface which is not a "hoax" by Hoagland but from Nasa files:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/frontpag … _nazca.jpg

Now, if you tell me the following photo is "natural" you maybe blind or lunatic, but anyway it's your option:

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/frontpag … /frontpage

Those "gears" could well appear in a microorganism animal or vegetal.
The Inca City in Mars has always been accepted as "natural" yet the new photographs add more to the controversy and AGAIN it's not an invention of Hoagland or the other guys, can you see the circular aspect we didn't see before?:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/8_2 … ...ex.html

Talking about the
spider maybe you are aware not only the spider appears in that photograph (you can file the photo and use zoom after) but Nasa decided to use vision sensors like spider eyes in their Mars rovers:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-gen … l-01d.html

What gave them the idea? Could it be a Martian spider actually found in Frass meteorite? I don't know, but please check these:
http://www.marslife.com/marsmeteorite]h … smeteorite
http://www.marslife.com/oldmarslife/spi … spidy.html

Or what about this?:
http://www.orreman7.com/NazcaResolved.h … olved.html
http://www.orreman7.com/MessageFromMars … mMars.html
http://www.orreman7.com/TheSunSpeaks.ht … peaks.html
http://www.orreman7.com/CropCirclesReve … ealed.html
http://www.orreman7.com/CropCircles2.ht … cles2.html
The very statement that the position of the Sun doesn't mater reveals, Mr. R, in your 34 years old you need to study more things about Earth before daring to discuss deeper issues....with all do respect.
Anyway, your commentaries are always welcome. Perhaps you -wisely- prefered to DODGE the issue about Nazca lines or artificial designs on Earth for good reasons. But I really would enjoy reading your views about these. After all what we are discussing here is if we can "see" artificial patterns on Mars. You can't do that if you can't see the difference between something artificial or natural erosion on Earth whether using photos or staring the thing with your own eyes. Since the second option is not yet possible cos there are no human astronauts on Mars, we depend on the first options.
Perhaps you want to discuss Nasa tampering data:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/images … finger.jpg
Maybe you want to discuss the fact Nasa itself has admited they are using RED FILTERS to make the planet more reddish than it actually is and see the sample of the 2048 resolution or check this:
http://xfacts.com/spirit2004]http://xfa … spirit2004
Someone was overlooking the photos revealing Mars. May I say it's been used high resolution pictures showing details AS SMALL AS 10 FEET ACROSS, 10 times better than the best Viking images? Perhaps you wanna ask questions to Mark Carlotto or the address of the Analytic Sciences Corporation or -who knows- National Space Science Data Center for additional background info. Do you want or are you satisfied with your incredible knowledge in your field? Hmmm? Just curious. ???

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:28:41

I mispelled a link, it's this:
http://fortunecity.com/roswell/barada/2 … nazca.html

:rant:

Spiritwalker777 · 2004-07-22 08:31:34

DOUBLE HEADED-CATS or cats with "wings"

I see, I see, I see what you are saying now.

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:37:23

The gears on Mars is here:
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/frontpag … feb01.html
Ahh! I forgot to say, in Ica and Nazca or Lima museums in Peru I personally saw these skulls which do have some anomalies not explained by "artificial" deformation:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6.ht … /sar_6.htm
http://www.starchildproject.com/analysi … is-01.html
http://www.starchildproject.com/starchi … unding.htm
Some where found close to Nazca lines:
http://crystalinks.com/nasca.html]http: … nasca.html

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:38:44

http://www.crystalinks.com/nasca.html
:;):

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:48:58

Good thing that you now "see" Spiritwalker. These are just echoes , material shadows of the invisible hyperdimension hybrid entities.
For example, the guy who examines the spider in Frass meteorite explicitly says the form maybe something in between . That's exactly the case of the spider golden devices found in the tomb of Lord of Sipan, Moche culture of Peru and the spider design in Nazca line which is from Amazon specie Ricinulei though the REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN is not like that spider, it's emphasizing the fertility aspect and to explain the association with this facts with the Solar magnetism will make do these people's homework. I already explained 1000 different things here (probably they never heard in their 34 or who knows how many years) but few will understand....or care to understand.
:up: for you, you are not among the cattle, Canterville ghost people, walking zombie numbers.

Spiritwalker777 · 2004-07-22 08:50:12

OH my goodness Oscar , here it is from the link you posted,

According to ancient prophecy, this is the time of the great gathering called the "mastay" and reintegration of the peoples of the four directions.

The Q'ero are releasing their teachings to the West, in preparation for the day the Eagle of the North and the Condor of the South (the Americas) fly together again.

They believe that "munay,"
love and compassion,
will be the guiding force of this great
gathering of the peoples.
The new caretakers of the Earth will come from the West, and those that have made the greatest impact on Mother Earth now have the moral responsibility to remake their relationship with Her, after remaking themselves," said Don Antonio Morales, a master Q'ero shaman.

oscar · 2004-07-22 08:59:24

Ops! Forgot again to give a little advice, Mr. R. Before doing a thesis about digital manipulation, first try to see by your own eyes -traveling by plane or chopper perhaps- what is actually in our planet without the use of computers. The face on Mars was seen by satelite by Nasa without THEMIS or MOLA or infrared and computer sort of alteration when Viking was sent. It was there then and it's there now and in fact other COMPLETE sphinx is there and the glass tube,etc, etc. Now, what you interpret (merely watching and without studying) is personal affair.

oscar · 2004-07-22 09:02:38

Yap. I read that, Spiritwalker...

Rxke · 2004-07-22 09:07:07

The very statement that the position of the Sun doesn't mater reveals, Mr. R, in your 34 years old you need to study more things about Earth before daring to discuss deeper issues....with all do respect.

With all due respect, if you had actually read my post instead of getting off to a rant, you should have noticed i said just so: comparing imagery without taking consideration about the position of the sun is not good science.

Personally, I consider the Naca drawings one of the true big wonders of the Earth.
(Wow. You post fast! While typing this, i see you updated the links, thanks, ... The gears: if you look closely left of the upper gear (and elsewhere, too, but there it's most pronounced) you see a horizontal incongruency. In other words: very pixellated or mosaiced picture, and the contrast-ratio is too high to really say anything conclusive, but i agree it is interesting... But what do you mean with micro-organism? The thing is huge, not microscopical in size.)

I tried to be cordial, but frankly, your haughty attitude does not make a constructive discussion very likely. I know how old I am, no need to keep repeating it.

BTW: 'bout the rover-spider-eyes: it has not yet been implemented on Mars. Neat idea, anyway, when i first read it (I clearly remember that occasion,) i thought it was brilliant.

Rxke · 2004-07-22 09:10:26

Edit: that's three times. Having a ball, aren't we?
What's your point, oscar?
Why should i try to discuss things with you when all you do is trying to troll?

Rxke · 2004-07-22 09:47:29

mkay... found the original Mariner pic on the net. That is not a gear. That picture they show has been processed to hell and back.

http://mars-news.de/mr9/07938353.gif]better one here. (I guess you recognize the site...)

Now, if you look above the feature, towards the left, you can see a crater, but the lighting tricks your mind to see a dome. Do the simple 180deg turning of said picture, and you'll see the gear is actually a depression.

oscar · 2004-07-22 10:09:35

HA-HA-HA! You make me laugh, man. You found the original frame! And you use it without zoom as Nasa does in the book I already mentioned before. It doesn't matter if you spin the photograph of that original frame number 4209-75 from Mariner 9 set in the Equator area of the planet (186,4). That was described by Nasa as "uncommon cuts with radial arms coming out of central block" and caused by the melting and colapse of permafrost.
Something more that I wanted to add about the Nazca design of the Spider. The Ricinulei spider drawn by Nazca lives 1000 miles away from Nazca plateau in the Andes. The creature itself is so little that to know the microscopic detail -but anatomically correct- elongated leg, the artists should have magnification power of modern microscope and the skill to proyect it in huge scale and I can say even more.
We are aware Great Pyramid and the other 2 in Egypt have been associated with Orion constelation for many reasons beyond the ones explained by Graham Hancock and Bauval. The same happens with Spider Nazca line:
http://www.morien-institute.org/nazca8. … azca8.html
Perhaps you wanna see the images of spectometers resolution (CHRIS) in Nazca , would you?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/eo-04v.h … o-04v.html

oscar · 2004-07-22 10:18:03

What I meant when I said "microscopical" organism is that although the "engines" and gears could represent technology it can also represent something microscopical. I'm setting the example of the huge spider design in Nazca although the creature is microscopic and before I set examples of T4 bacteriophage virus looking like lunar lander. It doesn't alter an inch the presence of a crater nearby. Or do you need satelite photographs of human civilization near a crater?

oscar · 2004-07-22 10:26:31

In fact the photograph of the "gears" if you print it and spin it , gives more impressive details than ever, like long galeries coming out of central device in a modern airport, showing the details and depressions. Nasa usually hides the exact coordinates of the local like they did in the case of the elipse on Mars they said was caused by Phobos shadow. But I can go on this photographic evidence and detail information forever, R.

Palomar · 2004-07-22 10:38:59

I know how old I am, no need to keep repeating it.

*Apparently Oscar thinks age is important somehow to this discussion? Okay, I'll bite:

Hoagland's old enough to be my father.

I read Sitchin's books in the mid-1990s. I found them intriguing and interesting to consider. I later made the acquaintance of a fellow who basically debunked Sitchin. He was a 21-year-old archeology student from New York, smart as a whip. 21 years old.

However, I wasn't entirely convinced of the debunking of Sitchin.

I think it's a mistake to entirely blow certain enigmas out of the water and disregard them. HOWEVER, I also think it's a mistake to gullibly swallow speculations hook-line-sinker as if it is undisputed, Infalliable Absolute Truth written in stone. :-\
(Those statements NOT directed towards anyone here; I'm simply commenting).

Balance is a good thing.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2004-07-22 11:13:17

HA-HA-HA! You make me laugh, man. You found the original frame! And you use it without zoom as Nasa does in the book I already mentioned before.

What's so funny? It's the origin of the totally oversampled etc. picture on the link you provided.
If i would have posted *my* version of the enlargement, wich i *did* make 'here,' on my computer using the original pic (the pds one, not the gif i linked) to compare it with the linked one on the mainpage, I would not add anything to the discussion.
I just posted the original frame for people to do comparison. If that's laughable, you have to reconsider what you call documentation. Going back to the source if you can is, IMHO, the only right thing to do.
If you quote someone, you say where you got that quote from. Same thing with imagery.

Rxke · 2004-07-22 11:20:20

What I meant when I said "microscopical" organism is that although the "engines" and gears could represent technology it can also represent something microscopical. I'm setting the example of the huge spider design in Nazca although the creature is microscopic and before I set examples of T4 bacteriophage virus looking like lunar lander. It doesn't alter an inch the presence of a crater nearby. Or do you need satelite photographs of human civilization near a crater?

Ok. I misunderstood. Thanks for the Nazca pic, impressive.

(The crater i only mentioned to point out the direction of lighting, was not a comment on the dimensions)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-21 17:01:37

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#52 2004-07-21 23:17:49

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#53 2004-07-22 05:19:04

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#54 2004-07-22 05:30:03

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#55 2004-07-22 05:45:31

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#56 2004-07-22 05:51:46

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#57 2004-07-22 05:55:23

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#58 2004-07-22 08:19:30

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#59 2004-07-22 08:28:41

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#60 2004-07-22 08:31:34

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#61 2004-07-22 08:37:23

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#62 2004-07-22 08:38:44

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#63 2004-07-22 08:48:58

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#64 2004-07-22 08:50:12

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#65 2004-07-22 08:59:24

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#66 2004-07-22 09:02:38

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#67 2004-07-22 09:07:07

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#68 2004-07-22 09:10:26

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#69 2004-07-22 09:47:29

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#70 2004-07-22 10:09:35

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#71 2004-07-22 10:18:03

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#72 2004-07-22 10:26:31

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#73 2004-07-22 10:38:59

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#74 2004-07-22 11:13:17

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

#75 2004-07-22 11:20:20

Re: Cydonian "Pyramids & Face" - ...(what is your opinion?)

Board footer